"I am beseiged. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion...I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism, and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country."

These are the words of William B. Travis, who commanded the Alamo when Texas rebelled against Mexico's despot, Santa Anna.

March 6 was the 168th anniversary of the Alamo's fall, which cost Travis his life, along with almost 180 others who went down fighting on freedom's behalf.

That, at least, is how America once viewed the Texas Revolution, which ultimately led to Texas winning its independence from Mexico.

In recent decades, this explanation has been challenged by another revolution. Starting in the late 1960s, a "counterculture" emerged from the fever swamps of the hard Left and began its long march through our civilization, leaving nothing untouched.

Not even the Alamo.

Next month, a new movie about the Alamo will likely reach a theater near you. If it embraces the counterculture's critique, watch out: Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and their other heroic friends may well be tarred and feathered with crackpot revisionism.

The Left's critique goes something like this:

The Texas Revolution was a devious scheme hatched by Washington to snatch the future Lone Star State from the Mexicans. Moreover, critics claim, even if it weren't, it couldn't possibly have been about freedom, since Texans were for slavery. According to this view, the Revolution was a racist struggle by whites who chafed under Mexican authority.

This critique is wrong on all counts.

Travis' famous words were indeed a plea for help from America. But that help never came. As the whole world watched, neither Congress nor President Andrew Jackson lifted a finger. As for the Texans, though they declared independence later, they initially fought only for their rights under Mexico's U.S.-style constitution of 1824, a constitution which the dictator Santa Anna had shredded.

As for alleged racism as a motive, why were so many of the Alamo's defenders themselves native-born Mexicans? And why did Mexican pro-democracy author, publisher, diplomat and politician Lorenzo de Zavala join the Texan cause as its first Vice President, leaving behind a lifelong career in Mexico and Spain?

As for slavery, even raising the argument misses the point. Slavery remained legal at the time across most of the world, including the United States itself, both North and South. Moreover, despite the unique evil of race-based slavery in the Americas, throughout time slavery cut across all racial lines. Just this week, The Washington Times reported on a new study from Ohio State University describing African Muslim slave raids into Europe down almost to the time of the Alamo, capturing at least a million white Europeans and denuding coastal towns as far north as Iceland. It is no marvel that 1836-era Texans -- or Mexicans, or Algerians, or Ibo ­ owned slaves: the shock remains that, by the end of that century, slavery had been all but eradicated from the Earth.

In this same vein, the revisionists ignore how many of the Alamo defenders hailed from other states and even other nations. Why would they join Travis in the first place? To defend slavery? Hardly.

No, the Texas Volunteers -- whatever their human flaws -- fought for freedom. They fought against a wanton, authoritarian regime far richer and far more powerful than they. And their wisdom speaks for itself: one hardly need travel to Mexico to see the disaster the century and a half of socialism and one-party rule since Santa Anna has wrought upon that resource rich land and its proud, hard-working people. One need only visit the endless stream of Mexicans coming to gleaming modern Texas to grasp the point that liberty matters, that freedom works.

Gripped by their loathing of our civilization, academia's tenured radicals can't bear this truth. By debunking past heroism, they hope to cut off our culture from what inspires and sustains it. By rewriting the past, they hope to hijack the future -- and remake America.

The new Alamo movie's director is "Happy Days" and "Andy Griffith's" Ron Howard. Let's hope that in the making of the movie, this icon of Americana hasn't surrendered to its harshest foes.

Let's hope he remembers the Alamo -- the real story, of one of the most pivotal moments in all history.

i remember the Alamo- first trip to San Antonio I anticipated something like what I had seen in that John Wayne movie. One would harly pay that shine as much notice as visitors to SaltLake City do the Mormon Temple. But inside the walls of the main building if one could visit when there was not a lot of noisy tourists passing-- one could almost hear tears-Rachel crying for her children. Away from the marimba band on the corner and the street puks playing pocket pool -- the Alamo and more specific the stand taken there will not be forgotten.

Maybe????? There aint no maybe about it. When that mindset is understood by conservatives and acted upon with conviction and determination, then and only then will we have any chance of winning this war. America's second civil war. The "War of the Constitution".

This weekend Spain lost. Does the same fate await America next November?

8
posted on 03/15/2004 5:24:15 AM PST
by sinclair
(Government is like any other entity - it's number one goal is self-preservation.)

Revisionists have tried for years to diminish the battle of the Alamo and it appears they may have succeeded to a point. I remember when we had a state holiday in honor of Texas independence, but no more. Don't want to hurt feelings or step on toes of our ever increasing Mexican population. In other words, we're sucking up. God bless the defenders!

11
posted on 03/15/2004 5:42:02 AM PST
by Dawgreg
(Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)

Hale botched his first operation and got himself killed. Everyone wants to remember the Alamo but I prefer to remember San Jacinto. Attack and beat an overwhelming force, end the war with victory, and change the future of mankind. Travis, Crockett, Bowie, and those guys may have had all the good movies, but Houston actually accomplished something.

Next month, a new movie about the Alamo will likely reach a theater near you. If it embraces the counterculture's critique, watch out: Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and their other heroic friends may well be tarred and feathered with crackpot revisionism.

Which is the primary reason why I don't get my history from Hollywood ... or anything similar.

Now that's sad to hear little Opie is one of those revisionists. While it's true Texas was for slavery but there was very little here, unlike other southern states, but most importantly our revolution had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery. We fought for the same principles and hopes of freedom from Mexico as the American Revolution from England. The article didn't mention, but if the movie is to be released next month, it is timed to coordinate with our independence day, April 21 when Santa Anna was defeated at San Jacinto. Heehee, thanks to grandpappy for hauling the chicken general and his sore slipper clad feet into camp to answer to Houston. Take a gander at the list of Alamo survivors' names and you'll see exactly where Opie will fail in any revisions:

Susanna Dickinson, wife of Capt. Almeron Dickinson Angelina Dickinson, their 15-month old daughter Joe, Travis' slave Gertrudis Navarro, 15, sister by adoption to James Bowie's wife, Ursula Bowie Juana Navarro Alsbury, 28, sister of Gertrudis Navarro Alijo Perez, 18-month-old son of Juana Alsbury by a previous marriage. (Became a San Antonio policeman and died in 1918.) Ana Esparza, wife of Gregorio Esparza, and their four children: Enrique Francisco Manuel Maria de Jesus Castro Trinidad Saucedo Petra Gonzales Brigido Guerrero, who had deserted from the Mexican Army about four years earlier. He talked his way out of being killed by claiming to be a POW.

Ben, the black man who accompanied Mrs. Dickenson and baby, is sometimes cited as a survivor of the Alamo, but this former seaman was actually a member of the Mexican army, serving as Santa Anna's personal cook. Whatever conditions were like in El Presidente's service, Ben was apparently perfectly willing to trade them for a hike into slave territory.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.